Plastic has a significantly negative reputation, arguably not without reason. According to the United Nations (UN)​, around 19-23 million tonnes of plastic waste leaks into aquatic ecosystems, which pollutes rivers, lakes and even seas with waste. It is well known to pollute some areas of human habitation, as well, such as the beaches of Senegal. It can be hazardous to animal as well as, in the form of microplastics, human health.

Thus, many consumers have a negative view of plastic. However, it is often highly important for the protection of food, and for providing longer shelf lives.

A recent study, published in the journal Food Quality and Preference, suggested that, in the case of healthy foods, consumer concern about the sustainability credentials of plastic, can be partially alleviated by the presence of front-of-pack labelling declaiming their healthiness.

What are front-of-pack labels?​

Front-of-pack labelling, such as Nutri-Score, Keyhole and Italy’s NutrInform Battery, are prevalent across Europe. They aim to help give consumers a good idea of how nutritious a particular product is, without going to the trouble of spending hours researching it.

What is consumer perception of products contained in plastic?​

To test the effect of plastic packaging on consumer perception, the researchers carried out an initial study. They presented participants with cereal, which according to the study is often perceived as healthy, contained in plastic packaging.

They asked them how they perceived the product within this packaging, as well as how ‘reliable’ they saw the packaging itself and whether they thought front-of-pack labelling had the potential to improve perceptions.

The study found a strong negative perception of plastic, influenced by both its perceived negative effect on the environment and perceived negative effect on the product. However, the majority of respondents (87%) did suggest that front-of-pack labelling could improve such a perception.

From this initial stage of the research, the researchers hypothesised that the presence of a front-of-pack labelling on plastic packaging will improve consumer perceptions of said packaging.

Which front-of-pack labelling has better consumer perception?​

In order to test which front-of-pack labelling had a better consumer perception – NutrInform Battery or Nutri-Score – the researchers created two fictitious salads in plastic bags to show participants. Some participants were shown those adorned with a Nutri-Score, and others with NutrInform Battery. Participants were asked to gauge their perceptions of the products’ quality, as well as their trust towards the material, and health concerns.

The study revealed that the NutrInform Battery positively affected how consumers perceived the packaging, compared with the Nutri-Score, both in terms of trust and food quality.

Do front of pack labels help improve consumer perception of plastic packaging? ​

In the third study, the researchers built on the previous two. Participants were shown either a plastic bagged salad with no labelling, a plastic bagged salad with the NutrInform Battery and the ‘tidy man’ logo (a widely used logo that aims to present a message of environmental responsibility), or a plastic bagged salad with the NutrInform Battery, the tidy man logo, and the recycling logo.

Participants were then asked how they perceived the quality of the food, the sustainability of the product, and their trust in the packaging material used.

The packaging without any front-of-pack labelling was perceived as less sustainable than that containing the NutrInform Battery and tidy man logo, which in turn was seen as less sustainable than the packaging which also contained the recycling logo. This, the researchers suggest, means that ‘virtuous’ cues such as the recycling logo have a positive impact on consumer perceptions.

The packaging without any front-of-pack labelling was also seen as consisting of less trustworthy material. Front-of-pack labelling also increased consumer perceptions of the food quality.

Sourced From: Food Safety & Quality
‘An investigation on the interplay between Front-of-Pack nutritional labels and plastic packaging materials in healthy foods’
Published on: 6 August 2024
Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105291
Authors: M. F. Mazzù, C. Donato, V. Marozzo

The launch of its plant-based steak into European retailers is ‘just the beginning’ for Israeli food tech firm Redefine Meat, CEO and co-founder Eshchar Ben-Shitrit told FoodNavigator Europe, in an interview earlier this month.

From July, the start-up’s flagship steak became available in the UK via online-only retailer Ocado and in Switzerland via Coop. This is soon set to be followed by the Netherlands via Jumbo, Albert Heijn and Crisp. 

Already available via foodservice across nine countries, the launches mark the first time that the flank steak has been made available direct to European consumers. It joins Redefine’s existing retail range, which includes pulled pork, pulled beef, bratwurst, lamb kofta mix, burger and beef mince.

And though “it’s too soon to tell” exactly how the latest product will be received by shoppers, Ben-Shitrit says “the fact that we are in retail as a new brand and adding more products to the range, with good consumer data and repeat purchases, shows that we have a partnership with retailers. This launch is just the beginning.”

It’s existing products, which hit shelves in November 2023, are “rating very high in comparison to the rest of the [plant-based] category,” he adds. At Ocado, “our burger is the top-rated burger in the category and our lamb kofta is also rated highly. [Ocado] are open on consumer trend data and we know from them that a lot of people buying Redefine Meat are trying plant-based meat for the first time.

“We’re also seeing a repeat purchase pattern which is the ultimate goal,” he adds, and shows that “that people are not just excited about a new product” but want to incorporate it regularly in their diet.

That even includes senior retail leaders themselves. “My biggest proof point for that is that I know that senior leaders in Ocado take Redefine Meat products home to cook,” he smiles.

A huge challenge ​

Redefine Meat unveiled the first iteration of its plant-based flank steak in 2020, with the company having been established by Ben-Shitrit and co-founder Adam Lahav two years prior as a way to apply the latest advances in 3D printing technologies to the alt-protein space. The approach was billed as a way to replicate the structure and fibrous texture of whole cuts of meat more closely.

The company has evolved its approach in the four years since, however, and now uses what it calls a patented additive manufacturing process that has allowed it to achieve the scale of production necessary for retail distribution. 

It’s no longer enough for a company such as theirs to market purely off the back of these novel processes anyway, believes Ben-Shitrit.

On the one hand, consumers have grown used to the level of sophistication in alt-proteins and how closely they imitate meat. “Five years ago, there was a trend of [meat alternative] products that consumers ate, and they said, ‘wow I can’t believe this is not meat,’ he says. “It was a real experience. But now that’s over and people have already had that experience. Now it’s about moving them from trying something once to incorporating it in their diets a few times per week.”

Achieving that higher repeat purchase rate has been made more challenging for the sector by a growing pushback in Europe against meat alternatives that they class as ultra-processed foods (UPFs).

According to recent research hub the EIT Food Consumer Observatory, which surveyed nearly 10,000 people across 17 European countries, 54% say they’re deterred from adding products like plant-based burgers, sausages and mince to supermarket trollies amid concerns they could be classed as UPFs.

Expectations are changing, agrees Ben-Shitrit. “When people want to incorporate something in their diet, the product attributes are more important than they once were,” he says. “They need to be super tasty and resemble meat, but they also need to be versatile and healthy. That’s a huge challenge.”

Redefine Meat takes a portfolio approach to the problem, he explains. Its pulled meat products, for example, don’t aim to so closely mimic meat but “they’re very tasty, very convenience to cook and also minimally processed and very healthy.” Others, such as its flank steak, undergo greater technological processing to achieve the finished product but deliver an experience far closer to meat. Healthiness and technological processing aren’t at odds with one another either, he believes. For example, “we also think that technology in the sense of processing can improve nutritional composition and digestibility.”

“We have to be honest, we are a technology company,” he points out. “We take plant-based proteins, and we make them into a steak. We will never hide behind the idea that we’re not processed, that we take proteins and magically turn them into steaks. But our processes are transparent.”

Ultimately, “there’s a lot of needs from the consumers, but you cannot answer those needs if you don’t have technology.”

New categories to disrupt ​

Of course, there is also speculation that plant-based has reached a plateau. A dwindling number of European consumers now say they identify as flexitarian, according to research by HealthFerm​, for example, while there have been well-documented struggles​ at major operators like Beyond Meat.

Does that concern Ben-Shitrit at all?

“The real question is not how you grow the demand for plant-based meat, but how you find the category in meat that is ready for disruption with the right product,” he says. Some alt-meat categories, such as plant-based burgers, are saturated, he believes, but the demand is still there – and growing – for those manufacturers that can offer a more diverse range of alt-meat options. 

For Redefine Meat, in particular, the target market isn’t those following a plant-based diet, he explains, but rather meat-eaters looking to reduce their consumption. As a result, “our main focus as a company is to maintain product improvement while scaling,” he says. “That isn’t easy but our number one focus is to make our products more tasty and meatier still. Until we capture 10% of the meat market, our product needs to become meatier.”

If taste and texture is its number one priority though, nutrition is a close second. “Increasing nutrition is much more of a priority than reducing cost,” he says. That includes scrutinising its protein composition and quality. “We’ve worked to include multiple parts of the protein sources, so you have the complete amino acid profile and we’re also carrying out a three-year research project to understand how much your body absorbs from the protein.”

Ben-Shitrit is clear on the scale of his ambition for the company in the next few years.

“We want to be the world’s largest meat company,” he says. “We want to take people that eat meat today and offer them the same meat, the same performance they want from it, just made in a different way.”

The new partnership will combine APC’s 20 years of microbiome research expertise with Kerry’s experience in commercializing science-backed ingredients in global markets.  

The Ireland-based partners will focus on biotic technologies to develop novel solutions focused on the gut-brain axis to provide health benefits around stress, anxiety and mood.  

New discoveries will be added to Kerry’s existing ProActive Health portfolio, which includes a range of clinically validated, branded ingredients for the food, beverage and supplements industries. 

Gut-brain innovation​

The partners have already conducted some work together in the field of gut-brain interaction. Kerry Group showcased a cognitive and immune health focused postbiotic concept at Vitafoods earlier this year​, backed by science conducted in partnership with APC researchers.

Its Stressless Immune summer fruit gummy included the firm’s Wellmune Adapt, a proprietary baker’s yeast beta glucan postbiotic for immune system support, paired with vitamin C and Sensoril ashwagandha, to tap into the fact the immune system is heavily influenced by stress.

“This is based on the concept that putting an immune ingredient and stress ingredient together in one gummy will produce better efficacy,” explained Elizabeth Horvath, vice president of marketing at Kerry.

The mechanism of action behind the Wellmune ingredient was studied, with published results in iScience​ indicating it acts as a trainer of the innate immune system.

The research was conducted by a team of researchers from Kerry, Trinity College Dublin and APC Microbiome Ireland and concluded that Wellmune works on the inflammatory and antimicrobial behavior of monocytes and macrophages—cells that are a critical part of the innate immune system.

Recent research​

APC carries out pioneering microbiome research, so far producing more than 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific publications. The institute has been particularly successful in collaborating with industry to develop science-based probiotics and other products, with more than €72 million in research funding secured from industry.

APC researchers recently showed​ that patients with social anxiety disorder (SAD) have a different microbiota composition than age-matched healthy controls (HC). They also completed research revealing​ the gut microbiota play a role in the heightened social fear response tied SAD.

The team used fecal microbiota transplants (FMT) to transplant microbiota from SAD or healthy control (HC) patients to mice before subjecting the mice to a range of behavioral assessments and analyzing fecal samples, ileal tissue and hormonal levels.  

The resulting data indicated that FMT from a SAD donor negatively affects gut bacterial colonization and leads to increased sensitivity to social fear stimuli.

“Our study shows that the microbiota in SAD is capable of driving symptoms characteristic of the disorder,”  said Prof John Cryan, vice president for research and innovation at UCC and lead author on the study. “This makes for exciting possibilities in the effort to develop therapeutics for patients suffering with SAD.” 

New reports suggest that President Joe Biden will step down from the race this weekend and will either endorse Vice President Kamala Harris or allow an open convention to choose the next nominee.

According to the New York Times, several people close to Biden said on Thursday that the president has “begun to accept the idea that he may not be able to win in November and may have to drop out of the race, bowing to the growing demands of many anxious members of his party.”

Though one source close to the president said that Biden has not yet made up his mind on whether or not to leave the race, another said that the “reality is setting in” and that Biden might very well make “an announcement soon endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris as his replacement.” The Times noted:

This account is based on interviews with four people close to the president, all of whom described the situation as extremely delicate and spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid offending the president. Mr. Biden remained in isolation at his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Del., after being diagnosed with Covid on Wednesday.

Contradicting reports have been spreading on social media as to what the president’s next move might be. While the New York Times‘ source said Biden might endorse Kamala Harris immediately, reporter Mark Halperin said that “multiple sources” have claimed the president will leave the next nominee to be decided by an open convention. Per his post on X:

The president’s family has also reportedly remained stalwart in their support for him to stay in the race, while other close advisers have told the president that the race against Donald Trump remains competitive despite what the polls have said.

As Breitbart News reported on Wednesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reportedly told President Joe Biden to step out of the race this week, a claim that his office did not deny. According to Jonathan Karl of ABC News, Schumer allegedly had a “blunt one-on-one conversation” with the president, advising him to step down so the Democrats can have a chance in the fall. Schumer’s office did not deny this conversation took place.

“I am told Chuck Schumer had a blunt one-on-one conversation with Biden Saturday afternoon in Rehoboth. Schumer forcefully made the case that it would be best if Biden bowed out of the race,” said Karl on X.

When pressed, Schumer’s office did not deny.

“Schumer’s office wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the conversation, telling me only, ‘Leader Schumer conveyed the views of his caucus,’” per Karl.

Karl said that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-CA) has expressed similar sentiments.

“Hakeem Jeffries has expressed a similar view to Biden, according to a source familiar. A Jeffries spokesman tells me, ‘The letter sent by Leader Hakeem Jeffries to his House Democratic colleagues speaks for itself. It was a private conversation that will remain private,’” added Karl.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates later clarified to Karl, “The President told both leaders he is the nominee of the party, he plans to win, and looks forward to working with both of them to pass his 100 days agenda to help working families.”

The alleged conversation with Schumer took place after Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) warned in a recent private meeting that Democrats stand to lose everything this election so long as President Joe Biden remains at the top of the ticket. Schiff delivered his warning to donors during a meeting on Saturday, which occurred prior to the attempted assassination on former President Donald Trump. Schiff feared not only that Democrats would lose the White House, but that they would also lose the down-ticket races in the House and Senate.

“I think if he is our nominee, I think we lose,” Schiff said at the meeting, according to a transcript obtained by the New York Times. “And we may very, very well lose the Senate and lose our chance to take back the House.”

Paul Roland Bois directed the award-winning Christian tech thriller, EXEMPLUM, which has a 100% Rotten Tomatoes critic rating and can be viewed for FREE on YouTube or Tubi. “Better than Killers of the Flower Moon,” wrote Mark Judge. “You haven’t seen a story like this before,” wrote Christian Toto. A high-quality, ad-free rental can also be streamed on Google Play, Vimeo on Demand, or YouTube Movies. Follow him on X @prolandfilms or Instagram @prolandfilms.

On Thursday’s broadcast of WBUR’s “Here and Now,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT), who has called for President Joe Biden to leave the 2024 presidential race, stated that the debate “really was a manifestation of an age issue.” And “there really is an age issue and an acuity issue that we can’t deny.” But if he stays in the race, Welch will back him.

Co-host Celeste Headlee asked, [relevant exchange begins around 3:00] “There are plenty of Democrats who say they will stick with Joe regardless of what his decision is. If he doesn’t drop out, I assume, will you still support him?”

Welch answered, “I would. But I think it’s much better if he steps aside. We’ll all get behind our nominee.”

Later, Welch added, “[W]hat we saw in that debate we can’t unsee. And I think Americans, rightly, concluded that that was not just a flubbed debate — which everybody can have — but it really was a manifestation of an age issue. That’s what’s on people’s mind, and it’s not going to go away.”

Welch further stated that Democrats have “a profound question that is resulting from what we saw in that debate, where there really is an age issue and an acuity issue that we can’t deny.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett

Secret Service leadership is covering up its failures in allowing an assassin’s bullet to strike Donald Trump, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview from the Republican National Convention.

Rubio first described his feelings upon watching Trump get struck by an assassin’s bullet.

“I was actually watching, I was watching it live,” Rubio told Breitbart Washington Bureau Chief Matt Boyle. “And my impression – you know, you see this thing and it takes a second for your brain to process it. It felt like maybe something had exploded in the crowd, and maybe something had sprayed on the President or whatever, because of his reaction. And then as you know, I can hear the agent screaming ‘Get down, down, down.’”

Matt Boyle Greets Marco Rubio at RNC 2024

Alana Mastrangelo / Breitbart News

Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said his concerns rose during the uncertainty as Trump was on the ground pinned by Secret Service agents.

“You start to wonder, you know, for those few seconds, he’s on the ground, we have no idea what’s actually happened,” he said. “They finally stand him up. And obviously you feel relieved, and then you realize, oh, my God, they took a shot. And at one point, because of the way they pop, you’re like, ‘I don’t know what that is.’”

The Florida Senator reflected on the scale of the tragedy if Trump had been lethally struck.

“I don’t know where this country would be on this very day, what would have happened if God forbid, obviously, would have been tragic the loss of President Trump, but I think it would have been catastrophic and cataclysmic for America at this moment, in particular,” he said. “You don’t even want to think about how horrifying the place you would have been in as a country as a result.”

Rubio said his mind next turned to the shooter.

“Now, we get pretty clear indications early on that this was not carried out by some sort of highly skilled assassin or some ninja,” he said. “This guy was, from what we know so far, 20 years old, everybody saw him walking around, people were screaming that there’s this kid who’s up on a rooftop, they knew about it for four or five minutes, they let the President take the stage. And he was close enough to take a shot.”

Rubio made clear the failures were unacceptable. “I don’t have to be an expert at Secret Service to know that there is no way in the world some kid with a rifle should be on a roof 150 yards away at an open rally from the president. There just shouldn’t be. And that’s the responsibility of the Secret Service.”

He said the Secret Service and others inside and outside the Biden administration quickly began the blame game but that the American people should not be fooled.

“Even if you’d like to go around saying, well, we turn that over to local authorities – which is not true, those local police departments were in charge of traffic control – but even that, they’re still responsible for the whole package. They put it together.”

He continued:

I don’t know if they if someone that had sat around saying ‘Let’s respond to this in the most horrible way possible.’ Like, what’s the worst way you could respond? This is it. No transparency, bits and pieces leaking out every day, mostly not from them. They should be having daily press conferences, discussing. Here’s what we learned today. Here’s what we know so far. Here’s what we’re doing next, when you don’t do that. So now people start wondering, ‘Hey, why aren’t these people aren’t telling us more? Why do we need to find stuff out from X or people posting videos?’ This has been handled so poorly. And you have to put that at the top. It starts with I think [Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro] Mayorkas, but it really starts with the Secret Service Director.

Boyle pointed out that Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle is in Milwaukee for the Republican National Convention. Rubio’s fellow Sens. John Barrasso (R-WY) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) confronted her Wednesday evening after she had refused to answer their questions about the failures responsible for Saturday’s assassination attempt.

“To be fair to them, they weren’t chasing her,” he said. “They met with her. They had an individual conversation and started asking her a question that she wouldn’t answer. She told them, ‘This is not the place to discuss this.’”

WATCH:

M. Perdie, J. Knudsen / Breitbart News

Rubio disagreed with Cheatle. He said:

I think it actually is the place to discuss this. And she gets up and walks out. And then they follow her down the hall. Because apart from everything else, she thinks she’s not accountable, doesn’t have to answer anybody she does. She should be on TV every day, with a press conference telling everybody, “Here’s what we found, here’s what we know.”

I mean, it’s not like you’re going to take this case to court – the guy’s dead. So why aren’t we putting this out there every day so the Americans understand, and being honest, and identifying where the shortcomings were internally? And we haven’t had that. We haven’t had that, we still don’t have that. And I think it’s a combination of incompetence and arrogance.

Boyle referenced a conference call between Cheatle, the FBI Director, and Senators Wednesday where reports indicate Cheatle ended the call without taking questions from Senators.

“They were they were waiting in line, people had said I want to speak,” Rubio said. “And then they basically said, ‘Well, there’s no speakers, there’s no questions left,’ and they cut off the call. And that’s really what started stirring up the anger.”

Rubio said the authorities are not being forthcoming:

I think they’re in a mode of protecting their reputation and themselves at this point. And let me be clear, when I’m talking to you, I saw a bunch of agents here yesterday that are with the President’s detail. I know some of those guys. They’ve been with us for a long time. And I thanked them. I said, thank you for what you guys do. I’m not talking about the guys that, you know, I’m not talking about them. I’m talking with the leadership of the Secret Service. And I think they’ve messed up. I think they know they messed up and now they’re [saying] “We’re not going to tell you anything. We’re going to try to find somebody else to blame it on.”

Rubio blasted Secret Service leadership for trying to blame local law enforcement for the failures, saying the Secret Service leaders “are 100% responsible for it. They’re the ones that advanced that event, are the ones who are supposed to protect President Trump and all the other leaders that they protect. They don’t just protect these people – they’re protecting our country.”

He said the Secret Service’s key mission is preventing destructive political assassinations, “and they failed in that mission. They’re trying to cover that up. And I think they’re trying to find who else to blame.”

Boyle discussed widespread credit to divine intervention for saving Trump’s life, with the president miraculously turning his head the moment the assassin pulled the trigger.

“I don’t even want to think about what it would have meant to the country, people would have witnessed a live execution, would have been broadcast to the world, the impact would have been horrifying,” he said. “The President – I’m sure he’s said it to people, he said it to me – he shouldn’t be here right now. He knows that, we know that.”

He continued, “I don’t know of any other way to explain it but the hand of God. We all witnessed a miracle. We literally witnessed a miracle broadcast on national television.”

Bradley Jaye is a Capitol Hill Correspondent for Breitbart News. Follow him on X/Twitter at @BradleyAJaye.

Populist television host Lou Dobbs, who once considered a run for the presidency, has died at the age of 78. His legacy of defending America’s working and middle class from Wall Street, open borders, and the donor class is more evident than ever in today’s politics.

Dobbs was known for his TV segments that waged war against free traders — the class of economists and politicians who defended opening the United States economy to rapid globalization that ultimately cost millions of American jobs across working- and middle-class communities in the heartland.

“This administration, its trade policies, I mean my contempt for their level of concern and care for the American people and for the good of this country in passing these idiotic [free trade agreements] … it’s just disgusting,” Dobbs said of President George W. Bush’s (R) administration following a 2007 segment regarding the growing number of food imports to the U.S. without proper safety regulations.

“What we have now is managed trade, it’s managed trade on the part of the European Union, it’s managed trade on the part of China,” Dobbs said in 2010 of the free trade consensus that reigned in Washington, DC, up until the last half-decade.

“It is time for Americans to understand that their elites have more than disappointed, they’ve actually tried to betray the very idea of the American dream by reducing the middle class to peons, in some cases trying to put them into a race to the bottom in competition with the cheapest labor in the world,” Dobbs described.

When Republicans in Congress sought to help give Bush and then President Obama fast-track trade promotion authority, Dobbs conducted several interviews calling out such politicians for what he said was an undemocratic process to enrich special interests while gutting more American jobs.

Perhaps Dobbs’s fiercest enemy was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Roundtable — the two leading big business groups representing the largest multinational corporations in the world.

In 2009, when a group of Democrats and Republicans were pushing to include rigorous “Buy American” provisions into a spending bill, Dobbs called out the Chamber of Commerce’s relentless lobbying against the provisions.

“[The Chamber of Commerce] bought a president for eight years for crying out loud, they know what they’re doing,” Dobbs said after then-Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) suggested the group simply did not understand the “Buy American” provisions.

“What does it say about this country if an organization that calls itself the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the manufacturing of American products, is opposed to putting money … in the pockets of American workers and American businesses, particularly small businesses that generate 80 percent of the jobs? What kind of … what in the world is going on in this country? Are we that far gone?” Dobbs said.

In a 2007 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Dobbs called out corporate outsourcers as the betrayers of American communities.

“When you’re willing to sacrifice the stakeholders, the community that business is created in, the nation it is created in, the good of that community for the cheapest possible labor and put your middle class in direct competition with people anywhere in the world making 57 cents an hour, that’s horrible,” Dobbs said.

Going hand-in-hand with defending the nation’s workers, Dobbs was a patriot on the issue of immigration — arguing for decades that the U.S. must reduce legal immigration levels and eliminate illegal immigration to raise the wages of working- and middle-class Americans.

“The idea that corporate America has brought in … as many as 20 million illegal aliens into this country … to exploit, I just have a hard time accepting the idea that those illegal employers who, for example, in the meatpacking industry where 20 years ago the average wage was $19 an hour and today it’s $9. I have a hard time accepting the idea that employers ought to get away with that,” Dobbs said in an interview with Charlie Rose in December 2006.

“Wages at the lowest wage levels in this country are declining, not rising,” Dobbs said. “So when you talk about a guest worker program, which we already have one in this country it’s called the H2 program, there’s going to be a reason it’s not working. And when you say we need more guest workers and wages are declining at the lowest centile in this country, that suggests a surplus of labor, not a deficit of labor.”

“Who are the victims here? The victims are the working men and women of this country,” Dobbs continued. “Because they’re the ones paying the taxes, working for wages that are at best … stagnant for over the last three decades in this country. They’re the real victims.”

In late 2007, during a panel discussion, Dobbs assailed the H-1B visa program and the elected members of Congress who parroted corporate talking points to defend the program which is known for laying off Americans after forcing them to train their foreign replacements.

“Senator Ted Kennedy held a hearing at the beginning of the year in which he invited one guest witness and that was Bill Gates to talk about H-1B visas and Bill Gates responded … he wanted an infinite number of visas to bring in the ‘best and the brightest,’” Dobbs said.

“… the reality is, an infinite number of H-1B visas would just be exponentially destructive as you might expect as the current H-1B visa program in which 7 out of 10 H-1B visas are going to Indian companies domiciled in the United States with the purpose of domestic outsourcing to Indian H-1B visa-holders who are paid on average $12,000 less than their American counterparts,” Dobbs continued. “… the lies associated with the H-1B visa program, the myths that corporate America … has attempted to perpetuate around the H-1B visas is, I think, breathtaking and worthy of a federal investigation.”

“The borders are broken, the H-1B visa program is broken because corporate America and special interest groups have been driving policy,” Dobbs said. “… the facts are staring every one of us in the face. Both of these parties have ignored the will of the people, they’ve ignored their responsibilities. The officeholders that we’ve sent to Washington, DC are, for the most part, abject slaves to the interests of corporate America and the illegal employers.”

Just six years ago, Dobbs appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to explain the intended goal of mass immigration to the U.S.

“When it comes to illegal immigrants, they are a ‘preferred’ group. And it is so because of the establishment, the Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, U.S. multinationals, they want cheaper labor, they want open borders, they want to ‘harmonize’ those borders,” Dobbs said.

“Under George Bush and most of the Obama administration, the ‘North American Union’ that is bringing Canada and Mexico together with the United States together was the goal … the reality is, Americans understand what’s happening … Americans know when they’re being lied to,” Dobbs explained.

Tucker responded, saying, “You’ve been saying this for 20 years and I remember vividly when we worked at another network and you said things like that and people laughed at you and you were completely right.”

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.

Haven’t you heard?! Crime is down. 

In the lead up to election day in November, this refrain has become a favorite of Democrats who’d like you to forget their flirtations with — and, in many cases, explicit support for — defunding the police.

That’s on top of the dozens of police and criminal justice “reforms” they enacted in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020. 

The headlines speak volumes: 

“A Drop in Crime Rates? Thanks, Biden!” — Bloomberg

“New data show homicides down in Biden’s last year vs. Trump’s” — Axios

“The crime wave is over, but Republicans can’t let go” — Vox

And New York City is often Exhibit A in this duplicitous messaging campaign.

Through mid-August of this year, murders and shootings in Gotham are each down 10% compared to the same period in 2023.

And in 2023, those numbers were also lower than they were in 2022.

But something’s fishy here.

They don’t say it, but the reason progressives are championing recent declines in offenses like homicides and gun assaults these days is to undermine voters’ (accurate) sense that the left’s criminal justice approach actually contributed to the upticks in violent crime in the first place.  

While it may be a comfort to see violent crime declines headlining news instead of crime itself, presenting the numbers without additional analysis muddles the overall crime picture. 

For starters, crime is not down in all offense categories; some are down and others are up. 

There have also been declines in population, subway ridership, and in-office work rates — all of which translate to New Yorkers spending far less time on the street than they used to.

This, in turn, presents fewer opportunities for criminals, and thus lower offense numbers.

The progressives advancing these messages say that anyone expressing concern about crime should be denounced as a “fearmonger” simply because some violent crime measures are down this year. But they ignore the bigger picture. 

When highlighting that some crime measures are down, progressives make an even more problematic omission: Enforcement is also up. 

Imagine that! 

The leftists who’ve championed depolicing and decarceration now highlight recent crime declines for one reason, and one reason only: to discredit any criticism of their public-safety records. 

The crime spikes were just blips, you see — temporary by-products of the COVID pandemic. Things are already stabilizing all by themselves. No need to reconsider the leftward lurch in how cities like New York have approached public safety in the post-Ferguson era. 

That’s essentially their message.

Those who take this line are hoping no one notices that the recent declines in the city’s serious crime have also been accompanied by intensified law enforcement efforts. Some stats to consider:

In 2023, NYPD arrests shot up nearly 20%. According to an Aug. 23 social media post by NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell, arrests have now reached a five-year high in the city.

Summonses are also up. In fiscal year 2023, the city Department of Correction reported nearly 4,000 more jail admissions than the previous year — just shy of a 22% increase.

The average daily jail population was up some 18% (to 5,873) in fiscal 2023, compared to fiscal 2022.

The state prison population has also increased, rising 4% between March 31, 2022 and March 31, 2023, according to a report by the Data Collaborative For Justice. 

What’s happening with New York City crime is no accident. Professional police critics would have you believe that elevated crime levels over the last few years were unrelated to their efforts to curb enforcement.

But the available data lend support to a far more plausible (and contrary) insight: enforcement matters. 

Yet, many progressives still can’t bring themselves to applaud the enforcement efforts that have likely brought about the modest safety gains they’re so aggressively latching onto.

Doing so, after all, would ease the concerns of those still worried about whether their next subway ride will be peaceful. 

The truth is that things could and should be a lot safer.

The only things in the way of that safety are New York’s (the city and state’s) criminal justice policies and the unwillingness of “progressive” pols to rework them.  

Rafael A. Mangual is the Nick Ohnell fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a contributing editor of City Journal, and author of “Criminal (In)Justice: What The Push For Decarceration And Depolicing Gets Wrong And Who It Hurts Most.”

In 1986, in the middle of a ballet class with her longtime teacher, a willowy Princess Diana sat on the floor, tears welling in her eyes.

“I just can’t seem to do anything right when it comes to my husband. I do love him so much and want him to be proud of me, but I don’t think he feels the same way,” she said, according to Anne Allan, the author of the new memoir, “Dancing with Diana,” out Tuesday. “I don’t understand why I am not enough for him; I think he prefers an older woman … I know he is seeing Camilla again.” 

Diana started taking dance lessons with Allan just weeks after her fairytale wedding to Prince Charles at St. Paul’s Cathedral on July 29, 1981. 

The princess and Allan, a London City Ballet dancer, became close friends, with Di confiding in her over the years as she grew increasingly unhappy in her marriage.

The emotional moment in 1986 was the first time that Allan had ever heard of Camilla Parker-Bowles.

“Why does he not love me? I really don’t understand. I have tried everything, tried to conform to his wishes even though I don’t always agree,” Diana said.

“There’s no affection between us, and I am always on my own. I just want to be loved. I can’t keep going on like this. They are really expecting me to just say nothing and keep going. How do I do that?”

Charles was not happy about his wife’s love of dance. Allan saw this firsthand in December 1985 after she helped Diana rehearse with their mutual friend, ballet dancer Wayne Sleep, for a surprise performance at the Royal Opera House.

The 5-foot-11 princess joined Sleep, who is just 5-foot-2, to dance to Billy Joel’s “Uptown Girl,” chosen specifically by Diana.

After coming off stage, Diana laughed and exclaimed, “Beats the wedding!” according to Allan. 

“She made her way to Charles, and as she stood before him, I could sense she desperately wanted his approval. He said, ‘Well done, darling’, and turned to talk with someone else. I sensed disapproval from him and my heart took a thud,” Allan writes.

Although other guests praised Diana, Allan recalls, “I was acutely conscious of those from the royal circle who did not say anything to her and looked down their nose at me, their disapproval evident.”

Still, Diana told her she would never forget the evening.

At their next lesson, “with a bit of a naughty grin on her face” Diana admitted that Charles “had not liked her showing herself in that way.”

Things got worse. 

In 1987, Diana was left bereft by the death of her police bodyguard and reported lover Brian Mannakee in a motorbike accident.

Diana would later describe Mannakee as her “the greatest love” in tapes recorded by her voice coach, Peter Settelen,

Soon after Mannakee’s death, Diana told Allen that Charles wanted to live separate lives, admitting, “All I want is to be with Charles and be loved by him, there’s just emptiness just now … he runs off to Camilla whenever he can. It’s not at all what I want. I’d like the marriage to work, but it just isn’t for now. Do I just put up with it, hoping he will change?”

When Allan asked if she could live without love and sex, Diana “blushed” and said she had met someone who made her feel “much better about herself.”

It was later revealed that she had embarked on an affair with Major James Hewitt in 1986.

“It made me happy to know that someone was caring for her in an affectionate, loving way, even though I was concerned that it might cause her hurt if it became known,” Allan writes.

As Diana’s marriage disintegrated, she once again “dropped” to the floor sobbing, Allan remembers, and said she was in an “unbearable situation,” having not seen her husband in weeks.

“Diana wanted Charles to be with her and to love her. Even though she was in her own romantic affair, at this point, Charles was still the man she desired and that was why it was so agonizing for her.”

After this, Diana’s Lady-in-Waiting, Anne Beckwith-Smith, called to say the princess may want to stop her lessons, but when Allan asked Diana, she was “annoyed”, making it clear it was the Palace who wanted to end things.

Soon afterwards, Diana said that she was “ashamed” to admit she was suffering from bulimia.

Allan had feared as much after Diana fainted during a trip to Vancouver in 1987.

“I gathered that the Palace had concerns and were aware, or at least suspected the problem,” she writes. “I realized that they may have been worried that it could be dangerous if anyone from the outside world found out … The more I thought, the angrier I felt. If the ‘establishment’ knew definitively, had anyone reached out to offer help and guidance? It didn’t seem that they had. Had they dismissed this disease as a sign of weakness, not understanding the mental anguish Diana was in?”

Diana’s bulimia was exacerbated by her marriage woes, leaving Allan “angry” at the future King’s affair with Camilla.

“Did Charles think that this was acceptable behavior, and that Diana should just turn her back and ignore what was going on? Was he relieved that his wife was in her own extramarital affair? Did it affect him at all? It didn’t seem so,” she writes.

In one romantic gesture, Diana laid out a picnic for her and Charles at Highgrove, his country estate, but when the prince saw the table, “he immediately dropped her hand and said, “I don’t eat outside. Get the butler to take it all in immediately.”

“In that instant,” Allan writes, “a bit more of her died. Her loving intention was destroyed by a few strong words.”

Allan also portrays the famous moment Diana asked Camilla, of whom she was “quite frightened” to leave Charles alone at a birthday party for Camilla’s sister, Annabel Elliot, in 1989.

She writes, “At one point Camilla made a very strange comment that further propelled Diana. ‘You have everything in the world,’ Camilla said. ‘Men falling for you and two beautiful children. What more could you want?’ ‘I want my husband,’ was Diana’s firm reply.”

Di gleefully told Allan about the events of the “momentous” night and how, driving home together, Charles “was all over [her] like a little boy who has done something wrong and is wanting back in your good books.”

“I thoroughly enjoyed hearing every detail, but more than anything loved Diana’s brave and bold accomplishment,” Allan writes.

Diana danced through both of her pregnancies, the author notes, and she was one of the first people in whom Diana confided she was expecting William.

Although Netflix hit “The Crown” shows Diana giving Charles a video of her performing “All I ask of You” from “Phantom of the Opera”, Allan says in fact, she secretly recorded herself performing to the theme tune from “Top Gun” for her sons – not Charles.

The princess also found a sense of accomplishment in having Allan secretly record her performing to the theme song from “Top Gun” for her to share with her beloved sons. (The press at the time reported that she had recorded “All I Ask of You” from “Phantom of the Opera” for Charles. The Netflix hit “The Crown” also shows this.)

Diana laughed afterwards and sent Allan a letter saying she enjoyed watching the VHS. 

“I see a lot of mistakes as do William & Harry who have great enjoyment pointing out mummy with her head down or ‘why aren’t you smiling,’” the letter read.

But the fun was over when Beckwith-Smith asked for all the footage to be sent back to the palace.

“It turns out that they wanted to make sure the film did not get into the wrong hands. I was irate. My loyalty was being questioned, and being a Scot, loyalty and trust are huge things,” writes Allan, who does not reveal whether she still has the tapes in her possession.

When Allan moved back home to Scotland and then to Toronto their classes stopped, but she kept in touch with Diana.

The last time the friends spoke was after the death of Diana’s father, Earl Spencer, in March 1992, the same year she and Charles officially separated. (They divorced in August 1996.) 

She was left “numb” and devastated by Diana’s death in a car crash in Paris in August 1997.

Of Diana, she reminisces, “In our classes, she was nothing but her true self. Dance allowed the light within her to burn brighter, and I was given the extraordinary honor of being a part of it.